ABSTRACT Bivalve production in Greece pertains to a vast extent of
mussel farming and a few other species of fishery products. Mussel
farming in Greece covers 375.5 ha primarily located in the northern part
of the country. About 523 farms have been licensed since 1976, of which
218 are using the single long-line floating technique for a nominal
production capacity of about 100 t/ha and a farming area of 1-2 ha on
average. The total annual production (gross pergolari weight) increased
to 36,000 t in 2008. Currently, there is a trend for further expansion
by licensing new farming sites. Eighty percent of the farmed mussels are
exported fresh and intact, primarily to Italy. One major problem seems
to be the increasing number of harmful algal bloom incidents during the
past decade. The future of the industry depends on the industrialization
of production methods and the development of scale to suppress the
production cost. Support of product branding and development of a
quality scheme would further strengthen the sector.

Farming of the Mediterranean mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis
Lamarck 1819, is the premiere, almost exclusive shellfish aquaculture
production sector in Greece. Molluscan shellfish farming in Greece dates
back to the 5th century, with records dating until the end of the Roman
period (Basurco & Lovatelli 2003). Recent historical background
shows that the evolution of the industry escalates during the mid 1980s,
following the pioneers of Mediterranean suspension shellfish farming in
Italy during the 1950s and France during the mid 1970s (Danioux et al.
2000).

In general terms, the development of the Greek shellfish farming
sector can be divided into 4 phases, similar to those described by
Theodorou (2002) for the sea bass/sea bream mariculture industry:

1. R & D phase (1950 to 1977) during which suspension mussel
farming was established in Italy and France, and quickly expanded to
Spain, United Kingdom, and Ireland. By 1980, it had expanded over almost
the entire Mediterranean (Danioux et al. 2000). Early efforts to
cultivate mussels in Greece were carried out by using poles, and were
restricted in a few sites with high primary productivity, such as the
Saronicos and the Thermaikos Gulf, close to the country's biggest
markets of Athens and Salonica.

2. Predevelopment phase (1985 to 1990) during which the first pilot
longline floating farms were established, creating an opportunity for
mass expansion of the activity in Greece. Although mussel cultivation
has developed rapidly since then, the full range of methods available
and practiced elsewhere in Europe have not been made known on a larger
scale. Almost all existing farms today use the Italian method of
pergolari hanging, either from fixed scaffolding frames or

from floating longlines. "Rope culture," practiced widely
in Spain, has no application in Greek waters, although it permits a high
degree of mechanization (Askew 1987).

3. Development phase (1991 to 2000) during which research, public,
and industrial priorities focused on production elevation that resulted
in a rapid increase that soon reached current levels. Techniques were
gradually set up to establish complete production systems (suspension
culture), to perfect and to scale-up specialized craft (shifting from
craft work to pontoons, from modified fishing boats to 10 15 m shellfish
boats specialized for longline systems, applying mechanization with
mechanical winches). This phase has been generally marked by financial
support provided to the farmers, with subsidies and private loans
granted by regional authorities and the European Union (Danioux et al.
2000).

4. Maturation phase (2001 to present) during which new aquaculture
strategies have been applied to make offshore systems reliable, while
lowering production costs (using bigger vessels, 15-20 m long, equipped
with star wheels, loaders, mechanical French type graders, and packing
machines), and to achieve economies of scale. This includes the
production concentration of large companies or producer organizations
(organizations of definitive production structures configuring the
profession, organizing the trade, and applying quality schemes and
research programs).

The aim of the current work is to demonstrate the major technical
and economic achievements of the Greek mussel farming sector to current
development, and to highlight the industry's major constraints and
most probable risks in an effort to contribute toward sustainability of
the sector.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data on bivalve shellfish landings and production harvests at a
national level are insufficient (Kalaitzi et al. 2007). Discrepancy
between different data sets weakens national and international data
monitoring. Inefficient collecting systems are not a Greek phenomenon
concerning fishery statistics in the European Union (EU) (The Economist
2008). Discrepancies resulting from measuring systems (e.g., pergolari
vs. packed volumes, license capacity vs. actual production volume,
export vs. ex-farm price, number of licensed vs. actively working and
producing farms) constitute a major difficulty in the effort to produce
reliable statistics objectively. Furthermore, there are issues raised
concerning nearshore farming within protected natural reserve areas,
rendering uncertain the legitimacy of the hanging park activity. As a
result, the official licensing of such farms has been withdrawn.
Officials were reluctant to implement the current law and postponed it
to be dealt with in the pending implementation of the new Areas
Organized for Aquaculture Development (AOAD).

In the current study, an effort has been made to develop an
objective data series on production volume and value from 1976 to the
present for the main cultured species Mytilus galloprovincialis. Context
data from national (Greek National Statistic Service; NSS) and
international authorities (FAO) were taken into account together with
data from structured questionnaires and guided interviews following
visits to mussel farms, processing companies, and producers'
cooperatives. Periods of production dropped as a result of disease, and
other constraints (Galinou-Mitsoudi & Petridis 2000,
Galinou-Mitsoudi et al. 2006a) were taken into account.

GREEK MUSSEL FARMING

Industry Distribution

In contrast to the rearing of euryhaline marine fin fish species in
Greece (sea bass and sea bream), which were developed in areas within
the mild climate of the Ionian Sea, and the central and south Aegean Sea
(Protopappas & Theodorou 1995, Wray & Theodorou 1996), mussel
farming has expanded mainly in the northern part of the Aegean Sea (Fig.
1). Ninety percent of farms lie in the wider area of the Thermaikos Gulf
(Macedonia Region), representing about 80-90% of the annual national
harvest (Zanou & Anagnostou 2001, Galinou-Mitsoudi et al. 2006a,
Galinou-Mitsoudi et al. 2006b). This is the result of the unique
convergence of several large rivers, with currents that continuously
move large volumes of freshwater, and thus provide excessive amounts of
nutrients that ensure a desirable, high primary production (Karageorgis
et al. 2005, Zanou et al. 2005, Karageorgis et al. 2006).

In Greece, there are two production methods mainly in use for
mussel farming: the traditional hanging parks, restricted in highly
eutrophic shallow areas from 4 5.5 m in depth, and the single longline
floating system, suitable for deeper waters (>5.5 m), which is the
most popular and widely expanded cultivation method.

Hanging Parks

The method of hanging parks has been applied in shallow waters (up
to 6 m deep) as it uses wooden or metallic scaffolding, wedged on a soft
bottom, to hang from its nonsubmerged (1 2 m above sea level) mussel
bunches. The latter are ropes, which provide space for mussels to attach
and grow, that dangle just over the bottom. The overall device is made
up of rectangular grids (15 x 100 m) installed at a certain distance to
each other ~50 m) to allow for sufficient nutrition from the locally
thriving phytoplankton (Alexandridis et al. 2008). Productivity per
hectare of these systems is usually very high, ranging from 150-400 t
live mussels. However, their application in Greece is restricted by the
limited available space in suitable sites (shallow soft bottoms,
desirable eutrophication levels, ease of access, protection from
excessive seawater turbulence, location not in protected natural areas,
and so on) (e.g., Karageorgis et al. 2005, Zanou et al. 2005,
Alexandridis et al. 2006).

In Greece, a legislation change during 1994 incorporated bills on
natural parks and coastal zone protection, and consequently removed the
licenses of most of these facilities without involvement of the local
authorities in the withdrawal of the facilities. Moreover, because these
systems are very productive, and easy and cheap to construct, many
farmers, and even unregistered newcomers, have extended these
facilities. At times, this had led to serious losses as a result of
suffocation or malnutrition of the settled spat (Kochras et al. 2000).

For some farms, the hanging park method is used complementary to
their main longline system, supporting installation for the finishing of
the product, for spat collection, and for biofoulant removal by lifting
the mussel bunches out of the water and exposing them to the air for a
certain time.

Single Floating Longline System

The single longline floating system is made up of a series of buoys
that suspend a submerged rope (~ 1.5 m below surface) from which long
mussel bunches are hung (down to 20 m), with the whole construction
anchored from its two ends with heavy loads. The longline floating
system overcomes the limited availability of space restricting the
hanging parks, by expanding the farming activity to deeper waters. This
can result in a somewhat lower productivity, ranging from 80-120 t/ha.
Typically, a number of parallel single longlines of 100 120 m in length
constructed by polypropylene ropes are UV resistant (diameter, 22 28
mm), and they are set 10 m apart and suspended from buoys of 180-200 L,
or secondhand plastic barrels. A pair of moorings (3 t each) is used to
anchor the floating installation laterally from each longline set to a
direction parallel to the direction of the prevailing currents. The
right anchor is site dependent (bottom substrate type, current
direction), with an indicative ratio between sea depth and distance of
anchor of 1:3.

In Greece, the installation of the longline system in the early
phase of the sector, was done by placing the anchor off the borders of
the licensed area, but recent regulation dictates that anchors should be
deployed within the limits of the rented farming space. The current
implementation of these rules poses a dilemma for the farmers forced to
choose between either rearranging their farms (with the corresponding
permanent decrease in capacity) or licensing the extra space needed to
expand (with temporary loss of valuable production time by following the
necessary administration paperwork, which takes more than a year).

MUSSEL FARMING BUSINESS

Today, in Greece, there are about 218 officially licensed farms for
mussel cultivation occupying 375.5 ha. These farms follow the single
floating longline technique, because the existing 305 hanging park
farms, being placed within protected coastal areas, have had their
licenses suspended until a legal formula can be found to legitimize
their operation. The evolution of the licenses issued by the Greek
authorities for each type of cultivation system is presented in Figure
2A. A significant increase in licenses coincides with election or
government changes, which affect policies. Producing farms are plotted
against the number of licenses, because it takes time for farms to
implement their license. Several licenses remain inactive. Of note,
several hanging park farms have expanded after their formal licensing or
installed prior to licensing. The total farming area licensed to each
farm type from 1976 to 2009 is presented in Figure 2B.

In Figure 3, actual production versus declared production to the
authorities (NSS, FAO, Customs) is presented, as data for the latter
were either overestimated (declaring merely the official production
capacity) or underestimated by farmers. Production rates per hectare
differ between the two cultivation systems, with hanging parks being
more productive than longline systems. Hanging parks are more productive
as a result of the excellent original placement of hanging parks in the
most productive spot of the Thermaikos Gulf. After trial and error for
the use of approximately 1 pergolari/[m.sup.2], the hanging parks
achieved an annual productivity of up to 400 t/ha. Such installations
represent very small licensed properties, originally 0.1-0.2 ha, because
they cannot stretch outward toward the open sea (Kochras et al. 2000,
Alexandridis et al. 2008). Cultivation system production varies from
year to year and from site to site, because it depends mainly on local
annual primary production. Local annual primary production varies
according to annual environmental fluctuations and the biogeochemical
characteristics of each location, influencing food availability,
spawning, and growth patterns (Rodhouse et al. 1984, Fuentes &
Morales 1994, Martinez & Figueras 1998, Ocumus & Stirling 1998,
Karayucel & Karayucel 2000, Edwards 2001, Kamermans et al. 2002).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Production Planning

Besides being the most popular cultivation technique in Greece
today, the single longline floating system is currently the only one
formally licensed, so its production plan is presented in detail here.
Nevertheless, the production plan of the hanging parks does not differ
significantly, because both techniques follow the life cycle of the
local mussel M. galloprovincialis.

A fully deployed, floating, single longline mussel farm in Greece
has an average production capacity of 100 t/ha/y (live product on a
pergolari, biofoulants included) and covers 1 ha with 11 longlines of
100 m each, running in parallel, 10 m apart. The operation cycle each
year commences by collecting spat (Fig. 4). Spat collectors of 2-2.5 m
long, usually made of common polypropylene ropes (diameter, 12-18 mm),
are dropped in the water from December to March at a ratio of 1
collector per 2 3 pergolari scheduled to be prepared at the end of the
spat collection period (Theodorou et al. 2006b, Fasoulas & Fantidou
2008). Spat settles normally when it reaches about 20 mm long or 0.8 g,
on 1,800 pergolari/ha (Kourniotis 1998), and is ready for harvesting
from the end of May until mid July.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

The juveniles (>35 mm) are easily detached manually from the
ropes, collected, and transferred to pergolari. These are plastic,
cylindrical nets, 3-3.5 m long, with a net eye of 60-80 mm attached on a
polyethylene rope hung from the single line every 0.5 m (201/ 100 m line
or 5,400/ha). They are formed manually with the help of
polyvinylchloride cylindrical tubes with a diameter ranging from 40-60
mm. From August to October, these first batches of seed are graded,
again manually, and juveniles are placed into larger pergolari, with net
eyes of 80-120 mm, formed using wider tubes 70-90 mm in diameter. A
third grading is necessary, if these pergolari get too heavy and risk
the loss of many mussels or even the whole bunch. From December to
March, new pergolari could be formed using larger holding tubes of
90-150 mm in diameter with a plastic net eye of 105-150 mm. providing
more space for the animals. Each tubing increases the survival of the
attached mussels, leading to a final 33% of the original seed. In
general, this strategy is used by all farmers and is modified at times
to suit their local or temporary needs by using different tube sizes or
net eyes. This depends on the quality and the condition of the seed
stock.

Mussels are ready for the market after a year, when they get about
6 cm long, usually in early summer. At this time, the pergolari weigh
about 10-15 kg/m, more than double the weight from their last tubing.
The mussel quality at harvest, assessed by condition indices and
chemical composition, varies seasonally, depending on the environmental
conditions that prevailed during the grow-out period (Theodorou et al.
2007b).

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

Production Economics

The profitability of mollusc shellfish farming is the convergence
of certain factors such as natural productivity, technical practices,
production costs, and product pricing (Mongruel & Agundez 2006).
Several efforts to measure the economic performance of the mussel
industry in Europe were indicative assessments based on generic
estimations and assumptions (Macalister & Partners Ltd 1999) or
pooled sampling data (FRAMIAN BV 2009), rather than detailed production
economics studies. This was a result of a lack of information
availability regarding the sector, especially for less developed
countries (Commission of European Communities 2009).

Theodorou et al. (2010), in an effort to analyze the financial
risks of mussel farming in Greece, performed a sensitivity analysis on
the farm sizes commonly licensed, taking into account the current market
situation and modern production practices. Results showed that farm
sizes larger than 2 ha are viable, and the cost of new establishments or
the modernization of existing ones could be afforded by large enterprise
structures. Taking into account that the majority of the mussel farms
are rather small (1-2 ha), it was concluded that the sector might need
restructuring in larger schemes, such as with producers'
organizations or cooperatives, to achieve financial sustainability and
to benefit from scale economies. Furthermore, EU and/or national public
support (up to 45% of the total fixed cost) is crucial for the viability
of the investment. The Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance of
the European Commission and other programs support new farm
establishments, mechanization of existing farms, and improvement of
deputation centers. In reality, working capital support is very limited,
with no alternative existing to bank loans.

The Cost Structure

A representative investment cost for the establishment of a typical
single longline floating mussel farm (1-4 ha) in Greece, ranges from
270,000-360,000 [euro] (average cost, 296,600 [euro]). However, this
amount varies depending on the farm size, location (distance from
land-based facilities), equipment availability, and prevailing weather
conditions in the area. The average cost structure of the industry was
estimated using average fixed costs (Fig. 5A) and variable operating
costs (Fig. 5B) of typical mussel farms of different sizes (1-4 ha).

The major investment costs (up to 61%) were related to the working
vessel (48%) and the grading machines (13%). The floating installations
(moorings, ropes, floats, and lighthouses) represented only 25% of the
total investment cost, which was affordable for newcomers to the early
phase of the sector's development. Other support materials were a
car (7%), and a dinghy, (ca. 6 m long) with an outboard engine (up to 20
hp) (3%). The license cost was not of utmost significance, because it
accounted for only 4% of the total investment. However, access to space
and licenses are critical limiting factors, and a problem common to
aquaculture development (Commission of European Communities 2009).

The major operating cost, other than fixed-asset depreciation
(41%), is labor. Despite mechanization efforts applied recently, the
work is still labor intensive, and salaries and wages represent 34% of
the total operating cost. Relative labor cost has not differed much from
those of other European mussel producers during the past decade (e.g.,
Italy (Loste 1995) and France (Danioux et al. 2000)). Consumables
represent 7% of the total operating costs, including plastic cylindrical
nets, packing bags, and polypropylene ropes.

The activity is low energy consuming (4%) and is, therefore, a true
"green" business. Annual fees for sea rental (3%), maintenance
and service (3%), car insurance (1%), and others (7%) sum up the rest of
the operating costs.

Profitability

Looking at the sensitivity analysis by Theodorou et al. (2010), the
break-even prices for profitable mussel farming in Greece are quite high
(Fig. 6). Ex-farm bulk prices, however, have remained stagnant for a
decade now and are quite low (range, 0.30-0.50 [euro]/kg) in comparison
with other European producers in the Mediterranean (e.g., Italy at 0.65
[euro]/kg and France at 1.43 [euro]/kg), according to a study by FRAMIAN
BV (2009). Nonetheless, profitability could be improved if new marketing
approaches were used to enhance the image of the Greek product.

Marketing

The distribution network from the farm to the fork is presented in
Figure 7. Mussels, before they are sent to market, undergo a sanitary
control according to Shellfish Hygiene Directives 91/492/EEC and
97/61/EC (Theodorou 2001a). Wholesalers and processors are required to
have EU-certified packing stations and purification plans. Today, 22
units are in operation. Except for packing, branding, and selling their
own products, these units provide such services to clients in the rest
of the chain (producers, distributors, and so forth). Bivalve shellfish
can be forwarded to European clients directly after official veterinary
inspection, because the packing and processing plants are EU approved.
The business of processing fresh mussels for the local market is very
limited, because processors focus mainly on cheap bulk imports and
repackage to distribute primarily frozen mussels and other value-added
product forms.

A special niche market is mussel shucking (33 approved
houses)--small, traditional primary-processing enterprises with small
shucked/shelling plants. There, live mussel are shucked manually with
knives by skilled workers. The mussel flesh is separated by hand and,
after being rinsed, is vacuum packed in 0.5-1 kg plastic bags, which are
preserved up to 4-5 days at 5[degrees]C according to product
specifications.

It was estimated that during the 1990s, consumption of this product
form reached 1,300 t annually, produced out of approximately 3,000 t of
cultured, whole fresh mussels and processed by 20 EU-approved units,
almost all family owned (Kriaris 1999). This type of product has a high
acceptance rate, especially in the catering sector, because of the ease
of handling and its "natural freshness" in contrast to the
industrial flesh separation with the preheat/steaming process used in
the rest of Europe (Kriaris 2001). Shucked mussels are more popular with
consumers from urban areas, because these individuals are less
accustomed to handling bivalves than those who live along the coast
(Batzios et al. 2004). Thus, there is a constant need for the
development of new technologies and efficient preservation methods that
would extend the shelf life of such products (Manousaridis et al. 2005).

Export Markets

The total export product volume in 2007 (Fig. 8A) was 16,230 t, and
value approached 10.48 million [euro] (Fig. 8B, data from National
Statistic Service). The majority of Greek mussel production has been
export oriented, with Italy as its major destination (Fig. 9), which
received about 50% of the total export volume of live product (~7.8 t),
followed by France (33%) and Spain (14%). Countries such as the
Netherlands, Romania, and Germany are niche spot markets absorbing
limited quantities (Fig. 9).

[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]

European wholesalers, through local representatives or agents,
mainly 6-7 big Greek producers and commercial enterprises, collect the
amount of mussels required to load a truck (up to 20 t). The product
form is fresh mussels either raw (2-3.5 m whole pergolari) or declumped
mussels, graded and packed in 10-kg plastic net bags without any further
processing. Modern grading equipment with brushes (French type grading
machines), capable of cleaning and grading 10 t of live mussels per day,
gradually replaced the old-style cylindrical graders of limited
capacity, because farmers can load a truck faster with live product for
immediate transport.

A common practice is reimmersion in seawater of the 10-kg
bag-packed product within the farm's offshore area for several
days. This procedure provides a quick recovery from the grading stress
and improves the animal's strength for transport; it also provides
alternative handling during a harvest ban resulting from harmful algal
blooms (HABs). The packed product form was introduced during the early
2000s as an effort to salvage live mussels, by withdrawing them from
over-weighted pergolari, during officially imposed long-term harvest
bans resulting from HABs. In 1999, this caused extensive damage to the
industry.

[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]

Mussels stored under normal air are transported within 3 days
maximum to their final destination where, ideally, they get reimmersed
in seawater for 3-4 days to recover prior to being retailed. Before
going into the market, all shellfish are tested following Shellfish
Hygiene Directives 91/492/EEC and 97/61/ EC. When the retail centers are
far from the coast, as is the case for the main shellfish markets of
Brussels, Madrid, Paris, and Rome, the seawater reimmersion stage cannot
be applied: therefore, shellfish should be transported at low
temperature as fast as possible to reach the retailers within 2-3 days
(Angelidis 2007).

Greek Market

Despite the presence of a wide range of shellfish species in the
Greek seas, there is an obvious lack of tradition among Greeks for
consuming shellfish species (Batzios et al. 2004). Apparent consumption
based on data from 1999 to 2001 showed that shellfish molluscs (mussels,
oysters, clams, and so forth) were 0.70 kg/capita annually at a total of
14.33 kg seafood/person (Papoutsoglou 2002). Most Greek consumers do not
know how to cook bivalves and ignore their high nutritional value.
Consumer reluctance was strengthened after poisoning incidents occurred
during the 1950s, caused by shellfish harvested from polluted shipyard
areas (Theodorou 1998).

[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]

People living close to the farming sites in northern Greece are
more familiar with bivalve consumption. Galinou-Mitsoudi et al. (2007)
reported on bivalve shellfish consumption in the city of Thessaloniki.
Among native species consumed in local restaurants, mussels (93.75%)
were the most popular, with the remaining shellfish types being consumed
in small percentages (warty venus Venus verrucosa Linnaeus 1758, 2.68%;
flat oyster Ostrea edulis Linnaeus 1758, 1.79%; and scallops Chlamys
glabra Linnaeus 1758, 1.79%). Selection criteria seemed to be based on
the lower price of the farmed mussels in contrast to wild-harvested
species of limited availability.

Because farmed mussels are usually consumed live or fresh, their
distribution to southern Greece or the Greek islands cannot be effected
by usual fresh product transport logistics (such as those used for
fish), because of the uncommon temperature (6-12[degrees]C) and handling
requirements (plastic net bags) that disproportionally raise the
distribution cost, especially for small quantities. Alternatively, fresh
bivalve shellfish are distributed by the farmers or the fishermen by
their own means of transportation. The competition for clients
(restaurants, fishmongers, and so forth) among the different
distributors depends on the availability and continuity of supply for
wild-harvested species. Mussels in this context are sold in a
complementary manner, because they are the basic product of the
"special" niche market of bivalve shellfish.

Market interaction between wild and cultured bivalves, based on
detailed statistics for the wild shellfisheries, needs further
investigation, because recent reports on the latter show a considerable
decline of catch (~700 t in 2005 vs. 7,000 t in 1994 (Koutsoubas et al.
2007)). This situation is clearly depicted in the local oyster sector
state with negligible exports during the past decade (Fig. 10A) and an
annually import volume ranging from 20-35 t during the same period (Fig.
10B). Fresh bivalves also have competition from imported frozen and
processed products, with the advantage of easy-to-use packaging at a
reasonable price. In 2005, 3,496 t of mussels in various product forms,
mainly of added value, were imported, with a total value of 12.3 million
[euro] The situation changed in 2007 as imports of live product (almost
all imported from Italy and Spain; Fig. 11) were 5 times higher and
processed mussel products 5 times lower than in 2005. Overall figures
were much lower, with live and processed mussels about half in terms of
volume and less than one third in terms of value compared with 2005.
Data were unavailable for mussels packed in air-tight packages, reaching
2.6 t in 2005.

[FIGURE 10 OMITTED]

In Greece, mussels are exported as raw material and imported as
highly priced value-added products of a smaller total volume (Figs. 11
and 12). The negative balance between the exported and imported volumes
of processed mussel products, despite the capacity of the local farming
for it, implies that the Greek industry should move to more value-added
products to compete with imports in the local market. Based on the trend
of the farmed mussel market depicted in Figure 12, it is evident that
the local market is currently at a standstill. Products not exported are
forwarded locally to a small number of restaurants, fishmongers, retail
chains, or seafood auctions, with public consumption restricted to
specialty seafood restaurants and local "tapas"-like bars
(Fig. 7).

In brief, the domestic mussel-selling business is obviously in need
of better marketing approaches. Sales could be improved by educating
Greek consumers on shellfish matters (Batzios et al. 2003) and investing
in product promotion in the local market. Because the per-capita
consumption of seafood products increased during the past decade
(Papoutsoglou 2002, Batzios et al. 2003, Arvanitoyannis et al. 2004),
bivalves could potentially have a better share of this consumer trend.

Employment

Mussel farming in Greece during the past decade provided 1,500
full-time jobs in the production sector and another 500 in the shucking
houses. During the peak production season, about 500 part-time positions
were covered by the local communities (Giantsis 1999, Sougioultzis
1999). Because the number of farms has not changed significantly in
recent years, no large changes are expected for these figures today.
Labor is usually not a problem in the major production areas of northern
Greece, because, despite the seasonality of production, jobs are offered
year-round. In contrast, in areas with few or isolated farms, labor is a
problem because of the seasonality of the job demand. As a result of the
fact that the majority of the farms are rather small and the job
positions are seasonal, the work is not attractive to employees. As a
result, most of the workers in mussel production seek a supplementary
and secure income from off-farm employment (agri-farming, commerce,
services). The same approach is followed by mussel farmers to reduce
their financial risk exposure or off-farm investments (e.g.,
agri-tourism, stock market). Available labor is not always suitable,
because skilled and experienced laborers are found primarily in the main
production area. No special legislation exists for mussel farm workers
other than the usual certificates for driving a car or a boat (engines
more than 25 hp); additional skills are required for safety use of a
marine crane or a forklift. Food handling and even swimming work
accidents do happen, especially when immigrants from countries that lack
any tradition in marine life are employed.

[FIGURE 12 OMITTED]

Licensing and Legislation

The licensing system of mussel farming in Greece is described in
Papoutsoglou (2000) and is similar to sea bass/seam bream cage farming
(Papageorgiou 2009). Strong interest from other competitive activities,
such as urbanization and tourism, for coastal space and natural
resources progressively restrains mussel-farming activity. Lack of
integrated coastal zone management (Kochras et al. 2000, Zanou et al.
2005) amplifies occasional water-quality problems generated from
nutrient overloading by agriculture, sewage plants, freshwater
discharges, and so forth (Karageorgis et al. 2005, Karageorgis et al.
2006). This also can be generated by confusion over usage priorities of
certain sites. Another issue is the application delay by veterinary
authorities of the existing legislation on zoo-sanitary health status
identification and, consequently, continuous monitoring of each site. As
a result, unauthorized shellfish movement still occurs, thus increasing
the risk for disease transfer from site to site.

To manage mussel production appropriately and to maintain or
improve the environment of farming sites, the Greek government has
proposed to organize the activity within AOAD. Legislation for AOAD
implementation would make provisions for water pollution control,
rational space management, wildlife protection, and so forth, and would
secure both the sustainability of the mussel farming environment and
public health. Although the concept of such aquaculture parks was
welcomed by farmers, its practical application has been delayed. The
concept faces a lot of problems regarding the development of the correct
structural management scheme for a certain area, the development of
supporting infrastructures, and a lack of knowledge regarding the
production and ecological capacity of each site. Furthermore, the
concept also faces strong local opposition by rival groups
(environmentalists and tourism or urbanization investors). Moreover.
industry stakeholders raise concerns on costs that might be superimposed
on the normal farm operation resulting from potential site shifts and
extra facilities or equipment required for water monitoring, product
purification, deputation, personnel welfare, and so on. In fact, strict
rules for environmental monitoring and sophisticated zoo-sanitary
handling may not be affordable by small farms.

This raises the question of how to protect consumer health without
asking the farmer to pay for it, as normally the product gets
contaminated by third parties (industrial, agricultural, or domestic
effluents: ballast waters: and so forth). An idea to solve this would be
the strict application of the concept that "those who pollute,
pay" through integrated coastal zone management, thus raising the
necessary funds for supporting depuration actions (CONSENSUS 2005).

CONSTRAINTS AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Greek shellfish sector reached maturity in terms of volume
growth during the past decade. Today, the priority is to deal with the
constraints that threaten or hinder the sustainability and financial
viability of the sector. Research and development priorities should,
therefore, deal with enhancing growth within the available space:
protecting production from environmental stress, disease, or biotoxins:
and improving product quality and marketing.

Stock Selection

Because the aquaculture for most of the bivalve species is still
capture based, it depends on wild stock availability. In general terms,
each year (if there is no environmental crisis resulting from major
weather or anthropogenic events), production ranges within grossly
anticipated limits. To surpass these limits research must focus on
either enhancing the collection of the available spat or on improving
the genetic capacity of the seed. Seasonal trials with spat collectors
at several depths (Theodorou et al. 2006b, Fasoulas & Fantidou 2008)
showed that improvements are possible, but efforts must continue to
achieve the maximum exploitation of each site without causing adverse
shifts in the natural food web. A difficult subject is the normally
unauthorized transfer of stock from one farm to the other, especially
between very different locations or countries. This opportunistic
behavior might garner occasional extra income for the farmer, but it
puts the health of his own stock and of his territory in general at
stake.

Thus, there is a need for installing experimental hatcheries that
work with broodstock to enhance seed quality. Strong commercial interest
for the continuous market supply of high-value shellfish species induces
further research on fisheries and wild stock management
(Galinou-Mitsoudi & Sinis 2000, Galinou-Mitsoudi 2004). Market
diversification and restocking necessities may promote potential
cultivation efforts (sea ranching) in the near future, despite the
restrictions associated with space availability.

Product Shelf Life Extension

The majority of Greek mussels are sold live, kept on ice, with
small quantities shucked, packed with tap water in polyethylene bags,
and refrigerated. In either case, the shelf life lasts 6-7 days maximum.
As mentioned earlier, the export of these products faces a critical time
constraint because transportation to major markets takes at least 24 h
and may be as long as 3 days (Angelidis 2007). Therefore, Greek
exporters should extend the shelf life of their product to further their
position in the foreign market. Modified-atmosphere packaging (MAP)
technology may solve the problem. Although its application was limited
in the past (Pastoriza et al. 2004), new development techniques indicate
that shucked mussels packaged in plastic pouches under MAP and
refrigerated could significantly extend shelf life by about 5-6 days
(Goulas et al. 2005). Goulas (2000) tested a range of MAP under
refrigeration and concluded that a mixture of C[O.sub.2]: [N.sub.2]:
[O.sub.2] at 3:1:1 (vv) preserves samples for -10-11 days with an
acceptable odor. A 35% extension in shelf life (11-12 days) of fresh
mussels was reported by Manousaridis et al. (2005) for shucked mussels
(M. galloprovincialis) that were vacuum packed and refrigerated in an
ozone-saturated aqueous solution ("ozonated" for 90 min) under
conditions that need additional optimization. Vasakou et al. (2003)
added sodium lactate and potassium sorbate to the meat of Greek mussels.
Chilled storage in pouches with water demonstrated no change in chemical
decomposition indicators. Kyriazi-Papadopoulou et al. (2003) used
salting technology to expand the life of Mediterranean mussel meat
products that underwent vacuum packing and chilled storage. Turan et al.
(2008) later reported up to 4 months of shelf life extension for similar
trials. However promising all these efforts might sound, further
research is required to provide applicable cost-effective processing of
the live product tailor made to meet consumer expectations and
producer/processor demands. A positive recent development is the strong
interest expressed by the frozen and canning fish sector, which might
speed up R&D.

Environmental Interactions

Most of the mussel farming sites are located in front of river
deltas, which are characterized as natural reserves. Current research
focuses on the environmental interactions of the biotic and abiotic
factors within the activity (Galinou-Mitsoudi et al. 2006a, Kakali et
al. 2006, Beza et al. 2007; Theodorou et al. 2007a, Theodorou et al.
2007b). The carrying capacity of the farming sites needs to be assessed
and classified to manage the hosting ecosystems efficiently.

Infections by the protozoan parasite Marteilia sp. have been
diagnosed in several bivalve species of the Thermaikos Gulf during the
previous decade (Karagiannis & Angelidis 2007). V. verrucosa and
Modiolus barbatus were not affected by the parasite (Virvilis et al.
2003), but most probably decimated the local population of O. edulis and
led its fishery to a halt in 1999 (Angelidis et al. 2001, Virvilis et
al. 2003, Virvilis & Angelidis 2006). The population of M.
galloprovincialis in the same area has been also infected (Photis et al.
1997, Virvilis et al. 2003), with the parasite affecting the "scope
for growth" physiological index (Karagiannis et al. 2006). Although
mussel production in local farms was negatively affected at times
(Galinou-Mitsoudi & Petridis 2000), it has not inflicted a dramatic
drop in the overall mussel production of the site.

The parasite has been detected only recently in Greek waters and is
believed to have been introduced in the Thermaikos Gulf through oysters
fouling ships, being transferred by their ballast waters, or through
infected oysters illegally imported to the site (Karagiannis &
Angelidis 2007). Therefore, the containment of the parasite in the site
is of upmost importance and could be implemented by imposing strict
quarantine rules to avoid the transfer of local stocks to other
locations. The Greek Ministry of Agricultural Development and Food,
following a recent presidential decree (article 5, PD28/2009), rules
that all farms must be evaluated for animal diseases to control their
potential spread to other sites. The full life cycle of the parasite in
local waters has not been identified yet, because it uses an unknown
intermediate host, most probably a copepod (Audemard et al. 2004).
Nevertheless, the cultivation of mussels in deeper waters with the
single longline floating method seems to have an advantage, in terms of
marteiliosis, over the hanging parks established in shallow waters
(Karagiannis & Angelidis 2007). This raises the issue of what is in
store for the future of these farms.

Harmful Algal Blooms

Extensive or semiextensive aquaculture systems like mussel farming
are more sensitive to production-independent risks (e.g., weather,
pollution, predators, harmful algal blooms) (Theodorou & Tzovenis
2004), because they are vulnerable to regional or interregional
mismanagement of natural resources (Theodorou et al. 2006c). Biotoxins
generated as a potential defensive mechanism by noxious phytoplankton
species affect nearshore aquaculture of primarily bivalve species on a
global scale (Hallegraeff 2003). In Greece, Dinophysis spp. and, to a
much lesser extent, Prorocentrum spp. have been identified as being as
responsible for considerable diarrheic shellfish poisoning (DSP)
incidents in certain occasions and certain locations during the past 20
y (Koukaras & Nikolaidis 2004). The first DSP outbreak, which
occurred January 2000 in Salonica, resulted in the hospitalization of
more than 120 people and was caused by contaminated mussel consumption
from the nearby farms in the Thermaikos Gulf (Economou et al. 2007).

In 1999, a national program for biotoxin monitoring was initiated
for regular monitoring of the waters of all coastal aquafarms in Greece
in adherence to the then-EU directive 91/ 492/EEC and, later, the
updated 853/2004/EC. The National Biotoxin Reference Laboratory (NBRL)
was, at the same time, founded in Salonica to support the actions.
Before harvest, all farms send water samples to the NBRL for detection
of potentially toxic strains of phytoplankton. In addition, no mussels
may be transferred from any farm without certification from the
authorities after samples are analyzed by bioassays in NBRL for biotoxin
contamination (DSP, ASP, PSP). If samples are contaminated or there is a
good chance for developing an HAB incident based on analysis results, a
harvest ban is imposed on the entire farming area until samples are
clean again.

Karageorgis et al. (2005, 2006), in the context of developing an
integrated coastal zone management scheme for the Axios River delta (in
the Thermaikos Gulf), which has one of the most prominent mussel-farming
sites, calculated the value of annual losses resulting from HABs to be
about 93 million [euro], assuming a per-year total production of 30,000
t (pergolari). The authors constructed 3 plausible scenarios for
assessing the potential economic impact of the proposed actions to
alleviate the negative effects: business as usual, policy targets, and
deep green. The corresponding results highlighted the high probability
of losses for the business-as-usual scenario, or 2.4 million [euro]
average annual losses; compared with the deep-green scenario, with a 0.2
probability or 0.6 million [euro] in losses; and with the policytarget
scenario, with a 0.65 probability and 1.95 million [euro] in losses).
Although the sector has existed for more than 3 decades, it is neither
insured by governmental funds nor by private insurance companies for
potential losses. Because the option for such support would strengthen
the long-term financial viability of the sector, a relative survey for
risk assessment and management should be carried out as soon as possible
to offer incentives and, potentially, to mobilize stakeholders in this
direction.

DISCUSSION

Greek mussel farming has become an extensive aquaculture sector
with an established status within the past decade. Nevertheless, Greek
mussel farmers are still far more interested in production issues than
in the commercialization of their product. Their attitude could be
explained by the fact that the majority of them, unlike fish farmers,
are of rural origin and are traditionally involved with agriculture and
fisheries. These farmers have been trained more or less empirically for
the job. As expected, their comprehension of the local and, especially,
export market is limited. They focus on the technicalities of their
production and how to improve their infrastructure. The situation is not
unique; the same behavioral pattern has been described for Norwegian
blue mussel farmers (Ottesen & Gronhaug 2004). Nevertheless,
marketing improvement of the product is essential for farmers to sustain
their profession in the future. During the late 1990s, more than 70% of
the global mussel volume was produced in EU countries and showed a
remarkable stability, with a small annual increase of 1% forecast for
consumption and a small annual increase of 0.7% forecast for demand
(Macalister and Partners Ltd 1999). Recently, however, although not yet
a threat for the local farmers, New Zealand (Perna sp.), China (M.
edulis Linnaeus 1758), and Chile (Mytilus chilensis Hupe 1854), which
availed themselves of improved transportation and limitations in local
supply resulting from declining local spat availability and HABs, found
a market niche and have gained a significant market share in live and
processed product each year (CONSENSUS 2005).

Greek mussel farming, despite recent modernization, is still labor
intensive. Much of the labor cost is unpaid because of the active
participation of the farmer and his family in the working routines. The
FRAMIAN study (2009) estimated a contribution of labor of 40% of the
total operational cost, excluding capital depreciation costs. Only 12.5%
of the labor cost was paid to nonfamily personnel, with a total number
of engaged persons of 2.5 per farm. These values were different from
other developed industries in the Mediterranean that reveal a different
cost pattern (resulting, probably, from a number of structural
differences such as professional tradition, code of practice, and so
forth). Spain, for instance, engages a similar number of persons per
farm (1.15) and shows a of labor cost allocation of 52% of total
operational costs, whereas Italy engages 8.3 persons per farm and shows
a much higher labor cost of 65%. According to the study by Macalister
and Partners Ltd. in 1999, production costs for the large, traditional
European mussel producers were likely to remain stable. In contrast, in
other countries like Greece, with a developing sector, restructuring
toward scale economics was most likely (Anonymous 2000). Development of
new structural functions such as producer organizations could suppress
the production cost by targeting on scales. Nevertheless, major
drawbacks might prove the organizational behavior of the sector
(Theodorou 1993, Zanou et al. 2005) is governed by the individualistic
mentality of the Greek mariculturist (Etchandy et al. 2000).

Besides cost structure differences, mussel farming in Greece
achieves ex-farm prices constantly lower than in other European producer
countries. Selling price is influenced by variations in the output of
other European producers. In the future, this discrepancy may be
corrected.

Expansion of Greek mussel farming in the foreseeable future is
limited because of space availability restrictions. Hence, the
sustainability of the sector requires restructuring toward economies of
scale, an emphasis on value-added products, and technology development
for extending the shelf life of the final product. Greek producers
should also adopt more sophisticated methods for quality control
(Theodorou 2001b) and marketing (Batzios 2004). This combination is not
only a must for penetrating new markets, but is also necessary for
enlarging existing ones.

Special emphasis should be put on the local market that, if
widened, could offer larger overall profit to farmers. This would result
from expanding the selling volume and from better prices in the local
market. It would also provide a secure ground for the farmers (or farmer
organizations) to take more risks in production expansion and,
especially, diversification.

A first step could be participation of the sector in generic
promotion campaigns for Greek trademarked food products, like
aquacultured fish, olive oil, ouzo, wine, and so forth, to minimize the
costs of such an attempt. A good strategy also could be to invest in
advanced marketing channels, abandoning the traditional wholesale system
by differentiating the product, either by processing or by branding it
in a quality scheme (Theodorou 1998).

Mussel farming activity has to be communicated to the public as a
true "green" one, as it promotes labor within the coastal
populations without significant energy input or pollution drawbacks. At
the same time, farmers themselves must become habitat keepers, thus
preventing anthropogenic environmental pollution from local inhabitants.
The establishment of an environmental code of conduct and support of
ongoing research of environmental issues of the activity could
strengthen the image of the industry. If successful, the campaign might
convert the, thus far, negative opinion of the Greek public versus the
product's safety by promoting the idea of a certified natural
product from a closely monitored, clean marine environment. Additional
arguments in this line could be favoring the carbon footprint, nearshore
water denitrification, and extractive ecoengineering actions of the
industry (Lindahl et al. 2005, Lindahl & Kollberg 2009).

Mussel farming, as a primary production sector, does not appear
very promising for bankers. Because of this fact, financial viability of
the venture depends heavily on EU funding schemes for assets to share
the investment risk. In addition, farmers use personal deposits and use
themselves in alternative activities to complement their cash flow when
in need.

For the time being, no insurance policy exists for this sector. As
a consequence, there is no support to compensate for losses, rendering
the business vulnerable to operational risks. A thorough mussel farming
risk assessment should be carried out to delineate all aspects needed by
private companies, banks, or the government to formulate a valid plan
for operational risk management of the sector. Meanwhile, special
programs, providing training in labor and environmental safety
procedures, may improve the risk management of the farms and thus
decrease losses.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Greek mussel producers focus more on production technology
rather than commercialization of production.

2. Mussel farming in Greece, despite recent modernization, is still
labor intensive. Production costs follow the same pattern as in other
European countries, although selling prices in Greece are always less.

3. The business expansion margin is low because of the limited
availability of suitable space.

4. Sustainability of the sector may benefit from scale economics.

5. Profitability may increase if emphasis is given to
diversification of value-added products and to product shelf life
extension.

6. Profitability may increase by strengthening sales in the local
market.

7. Sustainability may benefit by communicating to the Greek public
the ecofriendly character of the activity.

8. EU investment risk sharing has proved crucial for the viability
of the sector.

9. No policy yet exists to provide support of operational risks.

10. Further modernization initiatives should comprise incentives
for training, work safety, and environmental management.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to Apostolos Giantzis, Fisheries Scientist of the Fisheries
Authority of Salonica, Greece, for kindly provided data and suggestions;
and to the shellfish farming company Calypso Seafood-Aqua-Consulting Ltd
for providing production and marketing profiles, and evaluations.

Basurco, B. & A. Lovatelli. 2003. The aquaculture situation in
the Mediterranean Sea: predictions for the future. Presented at the
Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Development
of the Mediterranean and Black Sea Environment, May 29-31, Thessaloniki,
Greece.

Beza, P., I. Theodorou, A. Latsiou, I. Kagalou & G.
Papadopoulos. 2007. Impact of mussel farming in seawater quality of
Maliakos Gulf (Aegean Sea, Greece). Presented at the 14th International
Symposium on Environmental Pollution and Its Impact on Life in the
Mediterranean Region with Focus on Environment and Health, October
10-14, Sevilla, Spain.

Commission of the European Communities. 2009. Commission staff
working document accompanying the communication from the commission to
the European Parliament and the Council. Building a sustainable future
for aquaculture. A new impetus for the strategy for the sustainable
development of European aquaculture. Impact Assessment. Brussels:
Commission of the European Communities. 183 pp.